Aussie Feminist: Stay-at-Home Mothers Should be Illegal

"Only when the female half of the population is expected to hold down a job and earn money to pay the bills in the same way that men are routinely expected to do will we see things change for the better for either gender."

If you need any further evidence that contemporary feminism is about the destruction of the family unit and the empowerment of the State, check out the recent op-ed from Sarrah (yes, with two Rs) Le Marquand, editor-in-chief of Stellar magazine and the founding editor of the Australian Daily Telegraph's RendezView magazine. The piece is bluntly titled, "It should be illegal to be a stay-at-home mum."

Le Marquand first pays lip service to the argument that parental involvement in childrearing is important and it makes sense for the mother to be the primary caregiver initially: "Anyone who has a child — and this goes for both mothers and fathers — knows that everything else in life becomes a distant second to that child’s welfare, happiness and wellbeing. So this is not a discussion about the importance of parenting — that is beyond dispute. And yes, the role played by parents in the early months and years following the birth of a child is vital and irreplaceable."

Actually, it absolutely is a discussion about the importance of parenting -- or rather, about Le Marquand's rejection of parental choice.

She goes on to express her anger and bitterness that the Australian workforce isn't populated by enough females, and that too many Aussies believe "the most valuable work a woman can do involves nappies, play-doh, and a strict adherence to only leaving the family home during the hours of 9am to 5pm to attend playgroup or a similar non-work sanctioned activity."

It's time to get tough with parents and kids alike, she asserts: "Rather than wail about the supposed liberation in a woman’s right to choose to shun paid employment, we should make it a legal requirement that all parents of children of school-age or older are gainfully employed."

Got that? Rather than allow a mother the right to choose to stay at home to raise her children, she and the father should be required by law to be fully employed once the children are school-aged. Only then, she claims, "will we see things change for the better for either gender":

Only when it becomes the norm for all families to have both parents in paid employment, and sharing the stress of the work-home juggle, will we finally have a serious conversation about how to achieve a more balanced modern workplace.

Only when the tiresome and completely unfounded claim that “feminism is about choice” is dead and buried (it’s not about choice, it’s about equality) will we consign restrictive gender stereotypes to history.

So long as we as a nation cling to the lie that only a stay-at-home mum is best placed to assume the responsibilities of caregiver then working fathers will continue to feel insecure about stepping off the corporate treadmill to spend more time with their children.

It’s not good enough — and only when we evenly divide the responsibility for workplace participation between the two genders will we truly see a more equitable division between men and women in all parts of Australian life.

One commenter beneath the op-ed nailed it with this response: "And if the ungrateful wretches don't want to work because they'd rather be with their kids? What then? March them off to prison and have the state raise the children so they can be properly indoctrinated, I suppose. Thanks for making abundantly clear that feminism isn't about choice, it's about establishing an ideologically driven totalitarian state."

Absolutely correct. Feminism today is, as Le Marquand admitted, not about a woman's right to choose but about forcing "equality" by dismantling the family unit and establishing the State-driven ideology of cultural Marxism. Fortunately, most Australians are as dismissive of their cultural elites as Americans have become of their own.